Download - Applied Linguistics 2007 Taguchi 113 35
-
Applied Linguistics 28/1: 113135 Oxford University Press 2007doi:10.1093/applin/aml051
Task Difficulty in Oral Speech ActProduction
NAOKO TAGUCHI
Carnegie Mellon University
This study took a pragmatic approach to examining the effects of task difficulty
on L2 oral output. Twenty native English speakers and 59 Japanese students
of English at two different proficiency levels produced speech acts of requests
and refusals in a role play task. The task had two situation types based on three
social variables: interlocutors power difference (P), social distance (D), and the
degree of imposition (R). In one situation type, the power relationship was
equal, the distance was small, and the degree of imposition was small
(PDR-low). In the other situation type, the listener had greater power, the
distance was large, and the degree of imposition was also large (PDR-high).
The participants production was analyzed for overall appropriateness (rated on
a 6-point scale), planning time, and speech rate. Results showed that L2 learners
produced PDR-low speech acts significantly more easily and quickly, but little
difference was observed in native speakers production. There was a significant
proficiency effect on appropriateness ratings and speech rate, but not on
planning time. Post hoc analyses showed that each group demonstrated different
patterns in the choice of linguistic expressions over the two situation types,
indicating the noteworthy impact of situational variation on oral speech
act production.
In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), there has been growing
attention on the nature of tasks in which second language (L2) learners
engage to achieve language functions (Bygate et al. 2001; Crookes and Gass
1993; Ellis 2003; Robinson 2001; Skehan 1996, 1998). When describing
tasks, previous research mainly used variables from a cognitive, information-
processing perspective to operationalize task difficulty (e.g. the demands on
memory, time pressure) (Skehan 1996, 1998). For instance, tasks that use
unfamiliar information, involve numerous steps for completion, and provide
no planning time are considered more difficult to perform than simpler,
familiar tasks that involve only a few operations and provide plenty of
planning time. These psycholinguistic dimensions have been manipulated in
developing different task types. Previous research has analyzed learner
production elicited through different tasks or the same task with different
variables, and provided empirical evidence that features of L2 oral output,
such as accuracy, fluency, and complexity, vary by task type (e.g. Bygate
1999; Chang 1999; Robinson 1995, 2001; Robinson et al. 1995; Skehan and
Foster 1999; Wigglesworth 1997, 2001).
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Although previous findings have generally confirmed that the psycho-
linguistic dimensions of tasks have consistent effects on performance, what
is lacking in the existing literature is the inclusion of pragmatic conditions in
defining task difficulty. Because the central objective of language teaching is
to develop learners communicative abilitythe ability to use linguistic
resources to perform functions in contextrecent literature has focused on
the social dimensions of language tasks. Within L2 pragmatics in particular,
social and interpersonal factors (e.g. speakers social distance and the degree
of imposition), have been incorporated into tasks to elicit L2 pragmatic
production. Following this trend, this study takes a pragmatic approach
to examining task difficulty. It uses social and interpersonal dimensions to
develop task types. Learner output is analyzed for appropriateness and
production speed to examine the kind of impact such task variation might
have on L2 oral output. This investigation intends to provide insights into
what makes a task more difficult pragmatically and how the task difficulty
is manifested in learners oral production.
BACKGROUND
A task is described as a goal-oriented activity involving a meaningful,
real-world process of language use, and engages four language skills as well
as cognitive processes (Ellis 2003). A main objective in researching language
tasks has been to identify a set of task characteristics based on the assumption
that learner performance varies according to task characteristics. Recent
research has examined how different task types affect the quality of learner
output in classroom settings and in the context of assessment (Bygate 1999;
Bygate et al. 2001; Candlin 1987; Long and Crookes 1992; Nunan 1989;
McNamara 1996; Norris 2002; Norris et al. 1998; Robinson 2001; Skehan
2001; Swain and Lapkin 2001). The mainstream approach has been to apply
psycholinguistic categories to operationalize the degree of task difficulty
(Robinson 2001; Skehan 1996, 1998). Drawing on Candlins (1987) claim,
Skehan (1996, 1998) outlined three factors that contribute to task difficulty:
code complexity (the syntactic and lexical difficulty of language input),
cognitive complexity (the processing demands of tasks such as memory and
attention) and communicative stress (e.g. time pressure and the modality
demand). These psycholinguistics factors, once incorporated into the task
structure, are considered to produce differential demands, and consequently
affect the quality of learners performance (Robinson 2001).
Previous researchers manipulated these psycholinguistic factors to design
tasks to elicit learner output, and the output was analyzed with the measures
of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of language (Chang 1999; Robinson
1995, 2001; Robinson et al. 1995; Skehan and Foster 1999; Wigglesworth
1997, 2001). In Robinsons (2001) study, 44 Japanese learners of English
completed two map tasks: a simple task involving giving directions to places
in a small, familiar area and a complex task involving giving directions to
114 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
locations within a large, unfamiliar area. It turned out that neither task had
significant impact on syntactic complexity, as measured by the number of
subordinate clauses produced, but in the complex task, the production was
more accurate (as measured by the number of error-free clauses) and less
fluent (as measured by the number of words per clause).
Another psycholinguistic factor in task difficulty, planning time (a factor
included in Skehans model of communicative stress) has been the focus of
a number of studies, based on the assumption that the quality of production
depends in part on efficient planning. Previous research has examined the
effect of planning time on L2 output, yielding generally confirmed findings
that planning time positively influences linguistic output (Crookes 1989;
Ellis 1987; Foster and Skehan 1996; Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1995; Skehan and
Foster 1997; Wigglesworth 1997; Yuan and Ellis 2003). Wigglesworth (1997)
examined the effect of planning time on 107 learners of English in spoken
test. Results revealed that, for high proficiency learners, planning time
helped to produce complex, fluent language, but there was no effect on
accuracy. Yuan and Ellis (2003) examined the effects of pre-task and online
planning on speech. Forty-two learners of English narrated a story orally
based on a picture. The learners were divided into three task conditions:
no-planning, pre-task planning in which they received 10 minutes to plan,
and online planning in which they had unlimited time to narrate the story.
Results showed that pre-task planning enhanced grammatical complexity,
fluency, and lexical variety, while online planning promoted accuracy.
To summarize, previous research operationalized task difficulty mainly
from a psycholinguistic perspective, incorporating factors that are likely to
affect learners cognitive processing load (e.g. time pressure, topic
familiarity). The findings showed that tasks with greater cognitive demands
affect L2 spoken output in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity.
However, questions remain as to whether the concept of task difficulty can
be applied to other task types, specifically, those tasks that are more
pragmatic-oriented in design and thus reflect social and interpersonal
conditions. It is questionable whether the social and interpersonal
dimensions of a task, if manipulated to increase or reduce task demands,
could influence learner output in measurable ways, and whether the effect is
observed differently according to learners proficiency levels. Because
different tasks are likely to encourage different types of language processing,
tasks that are pragmatic-orientated should be included in the line of research
on task difficulty.
Such investigation will be useful because it corresponds to the current
emphasis on the functional, communicative use of language in context in
L2 instruction (e.g. Council of Europe 2001). Paralleling this trend,
developmental studies of pragmatic competence have received much
attention (Kasper and Rose 2002). Investigation of pragmatic task
characteristics could be a way to examine pragmatic development, because
it informs us which pragmatic tasks are more difficult to perform and thus
NAOKO TAGUCHI 115
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
are mastered at a later stage of development, as well as what factors create
such task demands. Thus, in addition to the psycholinguistic approach,
a pragmatic approach should be applied to define task difficulty.
When developing pragmatic tasks, previous research used a unit of speech
acts (e.g. requests) following Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969).
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), social and interpersonal factors,
namely interlocutors power difference, the social distance between them,
and the degree of imposition, influence the directness levels of speech act
expressions. In a situation where the speech act involves a high degree of
imposition, is addressed to a person who has more power, and is in a more
distant relationship (e.g. asking a teacher for a recommendation letter),
a greater degree of politeness is required to allow the interlocutor to save
face. In contrast, when the speech act involves a low degree of imposition
and is produced for a person in an equal relationship (e.g. asking a friend for
a pen), a lesser degree of politeness is required. Thus, the social factors of
power, distance, and imposition are thought to make speech acts more
demanding to perform in certain situations than in others.
These social factors have been included in L2 speech act research to
develop different task situations (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Beebe et al.
1990; Maeshiba et al. 1996; Rose 2000; Trosborg 1995). These studies have
examined learners sociolinguistic sensitivity: whether learners could vary
their linguistic forms according to situations, thereby approximating native
speaker norms. Findings showed that the social factors in tasks affected
linguistic expressions, and the expressions differed according to learners
proficiency. Advanced learners used more native-like expressions across
situations.
Although abundant research has examined L2 speech act production over
different social situations, little has been done to explicitly link the concept
of task difficulty to the social demands of a task, as well as to the nature of
L2 output affected by the demands. Fulcher and Marquez-Reiters (2003)
study is one of the few in this direction. Their study examined a relationship
between social features of speech act tasks and the perceived difficulty of the
tasks by native speakers. Twenty-three Spanish- and 32 English-speaking
students watched video recordings of their role play performance of requests
and judged how successful their requests were, based on a 10-point scale.
Their perceived degree of task difficulty was notably high in the extreme
cases of social power and imposition. Fulcher and Marquez-Reiters study
suggests that social factors such as power, relationship, and the degree of
imposition could serve as useful factors in creating contrasting task conditions
and predict task difficulty, consequently affecting output in measurable ways.
More empirical effort is needed in L2 to confirm the usefulness of the social
factors in conceptualizing task difficulty.
When conceptualizing task difficulty, measures of language output elicited
through a task require careful consideration because they reveal how
features of learner output vary according to tasks. Previous research used the
116 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity of linguistic output. In speech
acts, however, specific measures should be adapted to examine the impact
of social demands of tasks on learner output. Previous studies mainly
measured L2 speech acts based on learners knowledge, as exemplified in the
types of linguistic expressions, and the extent to which they approximated
native speaker choices (e.g. Maeshiba et al. 1996; Rose 2000; Trosborg 1995).
Other features that could serve as measures, such as overall appropriateness,
planning time, and oral fluency, have usually been neglected, consequently
limiting the analysis to syntactic features. As Kasper (2001) states, pragmatic
competence refers to the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge and to gaining
automatic control in processing it in real time. Thus, indications of
performance fluency, such as planning speed and oral fluency, which have
been used in task-related research, could provide additional useful
information from a processing perspective, that is, how rapidly they can
process pragmatic knowledge and convey speech intentions.
The knowledge dimension of speech acts is reflected in learners ability
to use appropriate speech act expressions. Pragmatic knowledge of appropri-
ateness reflects two major concepts: sociopragmatics (i.e. evaluation
of contextual factors) and pragmalinguistics (i.e. linguistic resources available
to perform language functions) (Kasper 1992; Leech 1983; Thomas 1983).
As Leech (1983) argues, pragmalinguistics is applied to the study of the more
linguistic and grammatical end of pragmatics, while sociopragmatics
is applied more toward the sociocultural end. Both are necessary elements
of pragmatic knowledge that determine appropriateness of L2 speech act
production.
The processing dimension of speech acts, on the other hand, is reflected
in learners cognitive efficiency in accessing and processing pragmatic
knowledge. Speed of performance is considered an indirect reflection of such
cognitive efficiency and provides an indication of processing abilities, rather
than knowledge (Juffs 2001; Lennon 1990). According to Levelt (1989),
speech production involves three interacting components: conceptualizer,
formulator, and articulator. Conceptualizer is the message-generation phase
where planning of the discourse direction occurs. Pre-verbal message then
moves to the formulation stage, where lemmas are activated, and
grammatical and phonological encoding take place. The encoded message
then becomes articulated. These different components work simultaneously.
De Bot (1992) adapted Levelts model to bilingual speakers. According
to de Bot, the conceptualizer is partly language-specific and partly
language-independent. Different formulators exist for each language, while
there is one lexicon. The articulator uses language independent speech
motor plans.
As illustrated in the models, speaking is a process of translating concepts
into linguistic units and articulating them online. It involves the process
of planning what to say and how to say it (Foss and Hakes, 1978;
Wiese 1985). Speakers evaluate linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge
NAOKO TAGUCHI 117
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
and make decisions about how to convey communicative intentions, and
articulate intentions using linguistic means. Fluent speech acts result from
rapid transformation of social concepts and articulation of the concepts.
In speech acts non-linguistic, social knowledge, such as speaker relationship
and goals of interaction, contributes to planning. Thus, two dimensions of
production, planning speed and speaking speed, could jointly promote fluent
speech acts.
In summary, with increasing attention being given to the characteristics
of language tasks in communicative situations, alternative means to
operationalize task characteristics are necessary. One means is to extend
the notion of task difficulty to speech act pragmatics by studying the social
dimensions of tasks and their impact on oral speech act production. When
examining the impact of task demands, measures of processing capacity, such
as speed in planning and articulation, combined with the measures
of appropriateness, could provide more complete information on the quality of
L2 speech acts across different task situations. These multiple criteria could
provide a means to measure the impact of task types on L2 output, and thereby
enhance our understanding of task difficulty in pragmatic production.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study used social variables to develop different task situations for speech
acts and analyzed L2 speech acts according to three criteria: overall
appropriateness, planning time, and oral fluency operationalized as speech
rate. The study also examined whether the task characteristics showed
differential effect according to learners proficiency levels. Three research
questions guided this investigation:
1 Do the type of social situations and L2 proficiency have differential effects
on the appropriateness of L2 speech act production?
2 Do the type of social situations and L2 proficiency have differential effects
on the planning speed of L2 speech act production?
3 Do the type of social situations and L2 proficiency have differential effects
on the speech rate of L2 speech act production?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants were 59 Japanese learners of English in a Japanese
university. They formed two proficiency groups: 29 higher proficiency
students (15 males and 14 females, a mean age of 20.48, ranging from 17
to 25) and 30 lower proficiency students (15 males and 15 females, a mean
age of 19.19, ranging from 18 to 27), based on the institutional TOEFL scores
(ITP TOEFL) and teacher ratings of oral proficiency. The 8-point rating scale
118 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
of oral proficiency adapted from ACTFL (1986) and the Ontario Test of Oral
Interaction Assessment Bands (John 1992) was used to obtain information
about the learners general speaking ability from classroom instructors. The
higher L2 group (n 29) had an average ITP TOEFL score of 508, ranging from480 to 590. Their average oral proficiency rating was 5.48. The lower L2 group
(n 30) had an average ITP TOEFL score of 397, ranging from 330 to 457. Theiraverage oral proficiency rating was 2.56. Except for one higher learner, none of
the learners had more than six months experience of living overseas.
Pragmatic speaking task
The pragmatic speaking task measured the learners ability to understand
situational information and to perform two speech acts, requests and refusals,
in role plays (see Taguchi 2003, for the details of the task). This study used
closed role plays, namely a role play in which the actor responds to the
description of a situation to an interlocutors standardized initiation (Kasper
2000). Three contextual factors served to categorize two social situations:
interlocutors power difference (P), social distance (D), and the degree of
imposition (R) (Brown and Levinson 1987). In one situation type, the power
relationship was equal, the distance between the interlocutors was small, and
the degree of imposition was low (PDR-low). In the other situation type,
the listener had greater power, the interlocutor distance was large, and the
degree of imposition was also high (PDR-high).
To confirm the PDR-low and PDR-high distinctions, a survey was carried
out. This survey contained 12 situations and the subjects were asked
to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 (easy) to 7 (difficult) according to the
degree of perceived ease/difficulty in performing the target speech act socially.
The situations were constructed under the influence of five references: Beebe
et al. (1990), Hudson et al. (1995), Rose and Ono (1995), and Sasaki (1998).
Based on the existing literature, asking for a pen and refusing an offer
of coffee were selected as benchmark PDR-low situations. The rating of 4 on
the scale indicated essentially the same degree of ease/difficulty with
the benchmark situation. The greater the number was, the more difficult the
speech act was perceived to be to perform socially, because it is harder to avoid
giving offense in such a situation. The survey was given to 13 native speakers
of Japanese and 11 native speakers of English in their L1s.1 PDR-high
situations received higher ratings (mean 39.56, SD 2.84) than PDR-lowsituations (mean 25.04, SD 2.87), indicating that PDR-high speech actswere perceived to be more difficult to perform socially. The difference was
significant using a matched t-test (p5 .05). In addition to the two PDR-lowsituations used as benchmarks, the two situations with the lowest ratings
were selected for the present task. Among the six PDR-high situations, four
situations with the highest ratings were selected for the task. Table 1 displays
the situations used in this study and their ratings.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 119
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
The situations were presented in written form on a card in L1. Following
Hudson et al. (1995), all role play scenarios had the participants perform
another speech act in addition to the target one to divert their attention
away from the particular speech act under study. The task included one
practice situation and four test situations (see Appendix).
Measures
Three types of measures were used to analyze the learners speech act
production: appropriateness ratings, planning time, and oral fluency. The first
measure, appropriateness, was assessed using a six-point rating scale ranging
from zero to five (Table 2). The sum of the ratings of the four PDR-high
speech acts (range of 020) and the four PDR-low speech acts (range of 020)
were used for analysis.
Appropriateness was defined as the ability to perform language functions
appropriately in a social context and subsumed two elements:
sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics (Kasper 1992; Leech 1983; Thomas
1983). By addressing these two holistically, the scale determined to what
extent learners could use expressions at the proper level of directness in the
given situations. Grammatical and discourse competencies were incorporated
into the rating on the basis of the degree to which they interacted with
appropriateness. Several references served as sources when developing the
scale (Cohen 1994; North 2000).
Six native speakers, all experienced ESL instructors, evaluated the speech
acts.2 The interrater reliability was 0.90 for the whole samples. The samples
that had a large discrepancy in evaluation (i.e. those that were more than
one point offapproximately 2 percent of the total number of samples)
were discussed in follow-up meetings, and the average score of the two raters
was assigned as the final score.
Other measures used in this study aimed to reveal the impact of task types
on learners speed of pragmatic processing. Two temporal measures were
Table 1: Role-play situations for the pragmatic speaking task
Category Situations Mean rating SD
PDR-high Ask your teacher to reschedule the exam. 6.13 0.90
(P D R) Ask your boss to give you a day off. 6.17 0.76Refuse your bosss request to reschedule work. 6.25 0.74
Refuse the teachers advice to take summer classes. 6.00 0.83
PDR-low Ask your friend for a pen.
(PD I) Ask your sister to pass you the remote. 2.79 1.10Refuse your friends invitation to the movies. 4.46 1.10
Refuse your sisters offer of coffee.
120 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
used: pre-task planning time and speech rate. Planning time was
operationalized as the time taken to prepare for each role play prior to the
task. Speech rate was used as one component of oral fluency that refers to
fluidity or smoothness of language use (Freed 1995). Speech rate
(the number of words spoken per minute) has been used extensively
in the previous research of oral fluency (Ejzenberg 2000; Freed 2000; Lennon
1990; Riggenbach 1991; Towell 2002), as well as in some task-based studies
(e.g. Robinson 1995, 2001). Previous research also found that speech rate
positively correlated with other measures of fluency, such as length of speech
without pauses, hesitations, or repeats (Freed et al. 2004; Segalowitz and
Freed 2004). In this study, word counts excluded false starts and repetitions.
Data collection procedures
Data collection took place on campus. After completing a brief survey and
signing the informed consent form, the participants started the task. First,
task directions were given by a female native English speaker interlocutor
who interacted with each learner during role plays. The role play descriptions
were given via individual situation cards. Every time the interlocutor gave
a situation card to a participant, she said, Here is the situation card.
The participants were given an unlimited amount of time to prepare
mentally. When ready, the participants were instructed to say Im ready.
and then return the situation card to the interlocutor and begin the role play.
Planning time was measured from the moment when the interlocutor said
Here is the situation card. until the moment the participant said Im ready.
All interactions except the practice one were tape-recorded and transcribed.
Table 2: Simplified appropriateness rating scale for the pragmatic speakingtask
Ratings Descriptors
5 Excellent Expressions are fully appropriate.
No or almost no grammatical and discourse errors.
4 Good Expressions are mostly appropriate.
Very few grammatical and discourse errors.
3 Fair Expressions are only somewhat appropriate.
Grammatical and discourse errors are noticeable,but they do not interfere with appropriateness.
2 Poor Due to the interference from grammatical anddiscourse errors, appropriateness is difficult to determine.
1 Very poor Expressions are very difficult or too little to understand.There is no evidence that the intended speech acts are performed.
0 No performance
NAOKO TAGUCHI 121
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Data analyses
This study examined whether the two social situation types (PDR-high and
PDR-low) have a differential effect on features of oral output, and whether
the effects differed according to the learners L2 proficiency. A series of
repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed on L2 learners appropriateness
scores, planning time (i.e. the time taken to prepare for the role plays),
and the average speech rate (i.e. the number of words produced per minute).
The between-subject factor was proficiency levels (i.e. high and low
proficiency groups), and the within-subject factor was the situation type
(i.e. PDR-high and low). Prior to the statistical analyses, data distributions
were checked for underlying assumptions. Significance tests for skewness and
kurtosis and the KolmogorovSmirnov test of normality (Tabachnick and
Fidell 2001) confirmed the normality of all data distributions, except that
for planning time and speech rate. Thus, a logarithmic transformation was
to improve the normality of these data. The significance level was
set at .05. However, because this study used three statistical comparisons,
the significance level was adjusted to .017 using the Bonferroni correction
(Brown 1990).
RESULTS
Tables 3, 4, and 5 display descriptive statistics of appropriateness scores,
planning time, and speech rate.
Effects of situation types on appropriateness scores
The first research question asked whether learners appropriateness scores
differed between PDR-high and PDR-low situations and between groups of
different proficiency. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant
main effects for situation type (F38.37, p .000, eta square .25) andL2 proficiency (F 85.20, p .000, eta square .43), and a significantinteraction between task type and proficiency (F 7.43, p .009, etasquare .06). Thus, PDR-high speech acts were more difficult to producethan PDR-low ones. The main effect found for task type must be interpreted
in light of its significant interaction with proficiency. Lower proficiency
learners had more difficulty in producing PDR-high speech acts than higher
proficiency learners.
Effects of situation types on planning time
The second research question addressed the difference in pre-task planning
speed between PDR-high and PDR-low situation types, and between the two
proficiency groups. The statistical analyses indicated significant main effect
122 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
for situation type (F 22.76, p .000, eta square .17). However, proficiencyrevealed no main effect on planning time (F 2.17, p .143). In addition,there was no significant interaction effect between situation type and
proficiency (F .04, p .844). Thus, learners were significantly faster inplanning when producing PDR-low than PDR-high speech acts. Because
planning time was not affected by proficiency or by the interaction between
proficiency and task type, it was concluded that L2 proficiency had no
significant impact on planning time for both types of speech act situations.
Effects of situation types on speech rate
The last research question examined the effects of situation type and L2
proficiency on speech rate. There were significant main effects for situation
type (F 60.44, p .000, eta square .35) and L2 proficiency (F 46.19,p .000, eta square .29) and a significant interaction between situationtype and proficiency (F 7.10, p .009, eta square .06). Thus, learnersshowed significantly faster speech rate when producing PDR-low than PDR-
high speech acts. The main effect found for situation type must be
interpreted in light of its significant interaction with proficiency. The lower
proficiency group was slower in producing PDR-high speech acts than the
higher proficiency group. A post hoc analysis was conducted to see whether or
not there is a relationship between the two temporal variables, namely
Table 3: Production appropriateness scores by speech act situations types
Group Situation Type K Mean SD Min. Max.
Higher L2 (n 29) PDR-High 4 14.55 2.26 10.00 20.00PDR-Low 4 15.97 2.26 8.00 19.00
Lower L2 (n 30) PDR-High 4 9.20 2.31 4.00 13.50PDR-Low 4 13.08 2.47 7.00 17.50
Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The means show the sum of the speech act ratings.
Table 4: Production Planning Time (in Seconds) by Speech Act Situation Type
Group Situation Type K Mean SD Min. Max.
Higher L2 (n 29) PDR-High 4 111.59 69.28 38.83 408.68PDR-Low 4 75.66 31.99 37.62 188.54
Lower L2 (n 30) PDR-High 4 128.32 66.26 44.97 372.31PDR-Low 4 85.50 32.38 40.08 193.69
Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The mean shows the average planning time per role play.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 123
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
planning time and speech rate. Pearson correlation showed no significant
relationship, r .04, p 0.8 for higher proficiency group, and r .05, p 0.8for lower proficiency group.
Descriptive analyses of linguistic expressions in speech acts
As a post hoc analysis, this study examined linguistic expressions used by
L2 learners to infer why PDR-high speech acts were more difficult and took
a longer time to perform than PDR-low ones. Request and refusal expressions
were classified for their directness levels, using coding frameworks adapted
from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) (requests), and Beebe et al. (1990) and Nelson
et al. (2002) (refusals) (Tables 6 and 7). The frequencies of all the expression
types were tallied and compared for trends between the two L2 groups.
Native speaker data (10 males and 20 males) elicited under the same task
conditions was provided as baseline data.
Table 8 displays frequency distributions of request expressions.
In the PDR-high situations, 100 percent of the native speakers used
mitigated-preparatory expressions, for example requests embedded in clause
structures (e.g. Im wondering if clause), while L2 learners, especiallylower L2 learners, tended to overuse direct expressions, particularly the
imperatives with please. Learners also relied heavily on hinting expressions
(39.6 percent), as shown in Example 1. Hints were not conventionalized,
so they required more inferencing on the part of the interlocutor and
sometimes more extended negotiations and clarifications. The percentage
of hinting was greater for lower L2 learners (53.3 percent).
Example 1: L2 learner PDR-high request, asking for a day off
L (learner) : Is it OK if I go to camping with my friend nextSaturday?
I (interlocutor) : Sure, you can go camping.L : Oh, thank you. (pause)I : That means you wont be working, right?L : Yeah.
Table 5: Production speech rate by speech act situation type
Group Situation Type K Mean SD Min. Max.
Higher L2 (n 29) PDR-High 4 28.36 13.40 6.89 66.27PDR-Low 4 81.95 27.46 27.75 138.72
Lower L2 (n 30) PDR-High 4 27.73 6.72 11.59 40.01PDR-Low 4 63.17 19.93 37.60 125.22
Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The mean shows the average number of words produced perminute in each role play.
124 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Learners overuse of hinting expressions may stem from their limited
linguistic abilities. The learners in this study did not know how to express
politeness linguistically in PDR-high situations because they were not
familiar with mitigated-preparatory expressions that contain complex
embedded clauses. As a result, they depended on simpler expressions to
request politely. Their implicit ways of conveying intentions using hints,
whether successful or unsuccessful, could stem from their strategies
for being polite and less face-threatening in these formal, high-stakes
request situations.
Table 6: Request coding framework
I. Direct expressions
1. Imperatives e.g. Please lend me a pen.
2. Explicit performatives e.g. Im asking you to lend me a pen.
3. Implicit performatives e.g. I want to ask you to lend me a pen.
3. Obligation statements e.g. You should lend me a pen.
4. Want statements e.g. I want you to lend me a pen.
II. Indirect expressions
II.A. Conventional indirect
5. Preparatory questions e.g. Could you lend me a pen?
6. Suggestions e.g. How about lending me a pen?
7. Permissions e.g. May I borrow a pen?
8. Mitigated preparatory e.g. Im wondering if you could lend me a pen.
9. Mitigated wants e.g. Id appreciate it if you could lend me a pen.
II.B. Non-conventional indirect
10. Strong hint e.g. My pen just quit. I need a pen.
11. Mild hint e.g. Can you guess what I want?
Table 7: Refusal coding framework
I. Direct expressions
1. No/Negative willingness/ability e.g. I dont want to./I cant.
II. Indirect expressions
2. Statement of regret e.g. Im sorry.
3. Wish e.g. I wish I could go.
4. Excuse e.g. I have a plan.
5. Statement of alternative e.g. Id rather drink tea.
6. Promise of future acceptance e.g. Ill do it next time.
7. Indefinite reply/hedging e.g. Maybe we can work something out.
8. Postponement e.g. Ill think about it.
9. Repetition/question e.g. Friday night?
NAOKO TAGUCHI 125
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Table 9 displays the frequency distributions of refusal expressions. Native
speakers used notably more hedging expressions and indefinite replies
(e.g. probably and kind of). Unlike native speakers, both L2 groups did not
use many indefinite replies or much hedging. Instead, they used more
apologies, which were almost absent in the native speaker data (Example 2).
It seems that learners who were unfamiliar with hedging or indefinite
expressions used apologies as politeness strategies to soften the refusals.
Example 2: Learner PDR-high refusal, refusing the advice to takesummer classes
I : Your grades are little low, so you should take summer sessions.
L : Ah, but I have plan, I have some plan for spring vacation,summer vacation, so I cant take it.
I : OK.L : Im sorry.I : Just think about it.L : OK.
Table 8: Frequencies of request expressions, PDR-high situations
NS Higher L2 Lower L2
% (n) % (n) % (n)
I. Direct expressions 0 13.8 (8) 26.7 (16)
1. Imperatives 0 7.0 (3) 21.7 (13)
2. Explicit performatives 0 6.9 (3) 1.7 (1)
3. Implicit performatives 0 0 0
4. Obligations 0 0 0
5. Want statements 0 3.0 (2) 3.3 (2)
II. Indirect expressions 100 (40) 86.2 (50) 73.3 (44)
II. A. Conventional indirect 100 (40) 46.6 (27) 20.0 (12)
6. Preparatory 0 10.3 (6) 10.0 (6)
7. Permissions 0 27.6 (16) 10.0 (6)
8. Suggestions 0 0 0
9. Mitigated-preparatory 100 (40) 6.9 (4) 0
10. Mitigated-wants 0 1.7 (1) 0
II. B. Non-conventional indirect 0 39.6 (23) 53.3 (32)
11. Strong hint 0 39.6 (23) 46.7 (28)
12. Mild hint 0 0 6.6 (4)
Notes. The numbers in the parentheses show the raw counts. There were 20 native speakers
(NS), 29 higher, and 30 lower learners. The number of requests analyzed was 40 for native
speakers, 58 for higher, and 60 for lower learners.
126 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
DISCUSSION
This study found that situation type had a significant effect on both
appropriateness scores and production speed in L2 speech act production.
PDR-high speech acts were more difficult to produce and required a longer
production time for learners than did PDR-low ones, regardless of their
proficiency levels. Thus, the social factors involved in a task, namely power,
distance, and the degree of imposition, seemed to make certain situation
types more demanding to perform than others.
The greater degree of difficulty involved in PDR-high speech acts could
stem from the greater level of politeness required in those situations.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), people attempt to maintain two
types of public image: positive face, the desire to be liked and approved of by
others, and negative face, the desire to be unimpeded by others. Refusals and
requests are considered potentially face-threatening because refusals threaten
the hearers positive face, while requests threaten the hearers negative face.
Thus, the speaker needs to use various politeness strategies to minimize such
threats. Longer planning time in PDR-high situations may be a reflection
of the amount of thinking involved in searching for those face-saving
expressions. Longer planning time could also reflect learners lack of
knowledge of those expressions. Because learners did not possess polite
expressions in their L2 repertoire, it is possible that they spent longer periods
of time planning how to proceed without them.
This interpretation also corresponds with speech production processes
discussed in the previous literature (Foss and Hakes 1978; Wiese 1985).
Table 9: Frequencies of refusal expressions, PDR-high situations
NS Higher L2 Lower L2
% (n) % (n) % (n)
I. Direct expressions 42.9 (30) 39.0 (41) 32.5 (37)
II. Indirect expressions 57.1 (40) 61.0 (64) 67.5 (77)
2. Apology 2.8 (2) 19.0 (20) 22.8 (26)
3. Wish 2.8 (2) 0 0
4. Excuse 37.1 (26) 27.6 (29) 33.3 (38)
5. Alternative 4.3 (3) 2.9 (3) 0.8 (1)
6. Promise for future 4.3 (3) 1.9 (2) 3.5 (4)
7. Indefinite reply/hedging 4.3 (3) 7.6 (8) 1.6 (2)
8. Postponement 0 0 0
9. Repetition/question 1.4 (1) 1.9 (2) 5.3 (6)
Notes. The numbers in the parentheses show the raw counts. There were 20 native speakers
(NS), 29 higher, and 30 lower learners. The number of refusals analyzed was 40 for native
speakers, 58 for higher, and 60 for lower learners.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 127
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge schemata interact in order to plan
what to say and how to say it. When producing speech acts, non-linguistic
knowledge, such as speaker relationship and the degree of formality of the
situations, carries weight in determining appropriate production. It is possible
that the greater the amount of non-linguistic knowledge required, as in
PDR-high situations, the longer the planning time becomes. In the case of L2
learners with limited L2 ability, longer planning time for PDR-high situations
could reflect their pragmatic challenge as well as linguistic challenge.
Speech rate, another temporal variable examined in this study, was also
slower for PDR-high speech acts than for PDR-low ones, indicating the
influence of situation types on one aspect of oral fluency. Although both
temporal variables were affected significantly by task type, a post hoc analysis
revealed no significant relationship between planning time and speech rate
for both L2 groups, suggesting that these two speed measures represent
different aspects of performance fluency in speech acts. The two temporal
variables are affected by the task type, but in an independent manner.
These results lend support to the two types of planning proposed by Wendel
(1997): off-line planning (i.e. planning prior to a task) and online planning
(i.e. planning while performing a task).
The distinction between off-line planning and online planning was also
documented by Yuan and Elliss (2003) study, which examined the effects of
pre-task and online planning on story narration by L2 English learners.
The study found that pre-task planning (planning prior to the task) enhanced
grammatical complexity, fluency, and lexical variety, while online planning
(planning while performing a task) promoted accuracy. Different types of
planning seem to direct learners attention to different aspects of language,
resulting in different production quality. Pre-task planning directs learners
attention to the conveyance of message that is reflected in greater fluency
and lexical variety. Online planning, on the other hand, encourages learners
attention to grammatical accuracy but results in reduced fluency.
Combined with previous findings, the present findings imply that online
and off-line planning engages learners with different attentional resources.
Learners seem to engage in different thought processes during performance
and focus on different requirements of a task at different phases of spoken
production. Because speaking tasks are considered more anxiety provoking
than other skill areas (e.g. Young 1992), it is possible that affective factors
such as anxiety, tension, and fear, as well as personality factors such as risk-
taking, may have influenced planning time in the task. On the other hand,
cognitive factors such as attention allocation, semantic access, and
phonological coding may have affected speech rate because learners were
required to interact spontaneously during role plays.
This study revealed that planning time had distinct characteristics on its
own, independent of speech rate, general proficiency, and appropriateness of
speech acts. Despite the more extensive planning time and slower speech
required for PDR-high speech acts, the mean appropriateness score for
128 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
PDR-high speech acts was significantly lower compared with PDR-low speech
acts, which suggests that polite expressions, even when located, were difficult
to employ. Additional analysis was conducted to check whether there was
a significant relationship between learners appropriateness scores and their
planning time. A Pearson correlation revealed no significant relationship
between the two variables, r0.12, p .71, which provides further supportfor the present results.
These findings contrast with the previous findings that planning time
positively influences the quality of learner output (e.g. Mehnert 1998;
Skehan and Foster 1997; Wigglesworth 1997; Yuan and Ellis 2003). In this
study longer planning time did not result in more appropriate speech act
production or more fluent articulation of production. It seems that planning
time did not necessarily affect the output from the tasks involving pragmatic
characteristics, probably because those tasks required processing of different
types of resources, including linguistic, contextual, and sociocultural
resources. As Mehnert claimed, time reduces the cognitive load to a
manageable level, but there might be variation in how learners utilize the
time with respect to the nature of the task.
The difficulty in performing PDR-high speech acts was probably due to the
relatively complex nature of the appropriate expressions, and the number
of supporting moves required in production. As shown by the analysis
of linguistic expressions, for PDR-high requests and refusals, native speakers
used complex, embedded sentence structures, and mitigated them with
supporting devices, such as hedges and indefinite responses. For instance,
in PDR-high requests, 100 percent of the native speakers used mitigatory-
preparatory expressions (e.g. Do you mind if clause), while they appearedin less than 10 percent for both L2 groups. These findings suggest that the
learners did not have the linguistic resources appropriate to the situation.
In order to compensate for the knowledge gap, L2 learners used expressions
that were ambiguous and thus ineffective (e.g. hinting) and consequently
failed to convey illocutionary intent. This tendency was stronger for the
lower L2 group. Learners spent more time in assessing the contextual
features in PDR-high situations, but in actual production, they were limited
in their use of appropriate linguistic forms that map the speech functions
onto the sociocultural context.
Although the present findings imply that the learners lower fluency in the
PDR-high situations is a reflection of production difficulty, it is also possible
that the less fluent speech was evidence of L1 pragmatic transfer.
In Japanese, a hesitant style is often deemed appropriately polite in
interactions with higher status interlocutors, especially as mitigating action
when the situation is face threatening. Speakers tend to avoid direct,
explicit verbalization of thoughts, and listeners are expected to become
sensitive enough to read the speakers message (e.g. Okazaki 1993).
Therefore, it is possible that the Japanese participants transferred
their L1 sociolinguistic norm to their role play interactions in L2 English.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 129
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Learners poor performance in PDR-high speech acts, then, seem to
have resulted from multiple factors, including their overall low
proficiency, lack of linguistic resources, and transfer of L1 communicative
conventions.
In contrast to PDR-high speech acts, learners found PDR-low speech acts
easier and faster to produce, probably due to the less face-threatening nature
of the situation and the lower degree of politeness required. When producing
PDR-low speech acts, it was unlikely that these speech acts would threaten
the interlocutors face, and thus there was little need to use overly polite
expressions. As a result, the expressions used to perform these speech acts
were relatively short, simple, and thus more easily used by learners. The
illocutionary force of PDR-low requests was realized by using fixed linguistic
conventions, such as an utterance Could you verb phrase. Similarly, fixedresponse patterns such as I cant or No thanks served as appropriate
refusals in PDR-low situations.
In addition to the linguistic simplicity and conventionality of these
expressions, learners familiarity with the situations could have contributed
to the relative ease of performing PDR-low speech acts. It is also possible
that the PDR-low situations used in this study were more frequently
experienced in L1 and L2 contexts, and thus were more contextually
accessible. For these recurrent, standardized situations, the planning process
may become subconscious and automatic because learners have available
to them ready-made plans and accessible linguistic means that reduce
the processing load. Thus, it could be a combination of accessibility of
linguistic resources, familiarity of situations, and situational factors that
reduces task demands.
The analyses of the types of linguistic expressions also suggest the potential
value of looking at strategic devices as criteria when characterizing learner
performance according to task types. Previous studies used accuracy, fluency,
and complexity as criteria when analyzing various features of L2 output by
task type. However, as shown in this study, in PDR-high situations, learners
used various verbal strategies to convey the appropriate level of politeness.
Thus, the types of linguistic strategies in the learners output reflected
situational differences.
In summary, this study showed that the different types of pragmatic tasks
(i.e. PDR-high and PDR-low speech acts) created different demands on
performance. Some pragmatic tasks were more conventionalized, immediate,
and were also less face-threatening. Thus, participants were able to perform
them quickly and easily because they required fewer linguistic and
psychological resources. In contrast, tasks that were less common and more
face-threatening were more difficult and took longer to produce.
The differential task demands that stemmed from these different
sociolinguistic variables were reflected in the features of the learners
output, from both a linguistic and processing perspective. The differential
task demands interacted with learners general proficiency.
130 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Implications for pragmatic teaching
This study provides evidence for the existence of task types in pragmatic
functions. It shows that sociolinguistic variables could be useful criteria in
distinguishing among tasks. Thus, when instructors design tasks as classroom
activities, they can manipulate both the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic
dimensions of these tasks, thereby increasing or decreasing the tasks
demands and developing tasks of different difficulty levels. This study also
identified those pragmatic tasks that are relatively easy to perform and that
should be placed at an earlier stage of the instructional syllabus. PDR-low
speech acts should be introduced before formal speech acts because they
were found to be easier and faster for L2 learners to produce.
Another instructional implication relates to the content of instruction.
The successful planning and production of speech acts depend on control
of two dimensions: pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (Kasper 1992;
Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). This study demonstrates that, regardless of
proficiency levels, the learners faced greater challenges with pragmalinguistics.
In PDR-high situations, they took more time planning, but they could not use
elaborated linguistic expressions. Thus, for learners similar to those in this
study, an instructional priority should be placed on pragmalinguistics,
particularly the choice and control of those language forms in realizing
speech acts. The expressions gleaned from native speaker data could serve as
baseline speech act behaviors and help to develop pragmatics materials.
Limitations and implications for future research
One major limitation is that the study could not reveal the actual processes that
the L2 learners were engaged in while planning. It was not clear how learners
were using the planning time; while planning they could have been searching
for words, thinking about how to avoid grammatical errors, or looking for
strategies to convey politeness. Future research should use additional measures
such as think-aloud protocols to examine what aspects of language production
linguistic or pragmatic aspectsmost concerned the learners while they were
planning. This line of investigation could help us to understand the nature of
planning time, which has been shown to bear no relationship with L2
proficiency, oral fluency, and the appropriateness of speech acts.
This study is also limited because it used only one measure of oral fluency,
namely speech rate. The study did not include other measures such as pause
length, which has been used in previous task-related studies. In addition,
speech rate measured as words per minute is not sensitive to the nature of
speech that often involves multi-word lexical chunks. Based on these
limitations, future research should apply a wider range of oral fluency
measures to confirm the generalizability of the present findings.
Another worthy area of investigation is the impact of individual differences
in production speed. The much greater variance observed in the time data
NAOKO TAGUCHI 131
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
compared to the score data supports the claim that planning and production
time involves much individual variability. Individuals tend to differ in the
ways in which they cope with processing demands in real time. These
individual differences may be a reflection of differences in peoples planning
and decision-making, as well as differences in personality, affective, and
cognitive factors. Speed in pragmatic processing is influenced by a great
number of non-language factors, including ones sociocultural knowledge
and experience, which could eventually lead to greater individual variance.
Because several studies examined the relationship between personality and
speech production (e.g. Dewaele and Furnham 2000), future pragmatic
research should incorporate individual differences as additional variables
when addressing production speed.
Finally, future research should investigate a broader range of pragmatic tasks
to shed further light on the task difficulty of different speaking tasks.
Functional ability for language use can be extended beyond the typical speech
act types so widely investigated to include tasks from other areas. The areas
suggested as universal pragmatic competence by Kasper and Rose (2002), such
as face-saving ability and expressions of epistemic stance, could provide a
useful basis for designing tasks with different sociocultural characteristics.
Furthermore, in the future research, other measures that are specific to
pragmatic competence and spoken discourse, such as discourse management
strategies, can be applied in analyzing learner output. Future research using a
variety of task conditions drawn from pragmatic and sociocultural categories, as
well as different types of analytical criteria, could advance our understanding
of what tasks constitute and how they impact learner performance.
Final version received November 2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincere thanks to Dr Mary McGroarty, Dr Joan Jamieson, Dr Susan Fitzmaurice, and
Dr Barbara Freed for their valuable comments and guidance for this research. I would also like
to thank three anonymous reviewers and the Applied Linguistics editors for their constructive
comments and suggestions. I am also thankful to Dennis Johnson for proofreading the
manuscript. A special thanks also goes to Yuko Uchima at Akita International University for her
assistance on data analyses.
APPENDIX: SAMPLE PRAGMATIC SPEAKING TASK SITUATIONCARDS
PDR-low situation
Its 7:00 PM. You are in the school library studying for tomorrows English
test. A good friend of yours is also studying in the library. Your pen just quit,
so you want to ask her to lend you a pen. She asks if you want to take a
break and go to the movies with her. You want to refuse the invitation
because you have to study more for tomorrows test.
132 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
PDR-high situation
You are talking with your teacher in her office. Your test is next Friday, but
you have your friends wedding on the same day. You want to ask her if you
can take the test at some other time. Your teacher suggests that you should
take summer session because your grades are low. You want to refuse the
suggestion because you already have plans.
NOTES
1 The results of the pilot study showed
no discernable differences between
the Japanese and American partici-
pants responses, suggesting that the
PDR-low and PDR-high distinctions
had cross-cultural validity.
2 Experienced ESL instructors were
selected because of their extensive
experience in using holistic assessment
guidelines to evaluate L2 performance.
The raters were asked to listen to each
role play and write the rate that they
thought the most appropriate. After
the norming session, a set of 2025
samples were assigned randomly to
each rater and evaluated indepen-
dently at home. Each set of samples
was evaluated by two different raters.
REFERENCES
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beebe, L. M., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz.
1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals in R.
Scarcella, D. Andersen, and S. Krashen (eds):
Developing Communicative Competence in a
Second Language. New York: Newbury House,
pp. 5574.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, andG. Kasper. 1989.
Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, J. D. 1990. The use of multiple t tests in
language research, TESOL Quarterly 24: 7703.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1978. Universals in
language usage: Politeness phenomena in E. N.
Goody (ed.): Questions and Politeness: Strategies in
social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 56289.
Bygate,M. 1999. Quality of language and purpose
of task: Patterns of learners language on twooral
communication tasks, Language Teaching
Research 3: 185214.
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001.
Introduction in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and
M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks:
Second language learning, teaching, and testing.
New York: Longman, pp. 120.
Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language
learning in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds):
Language Learning Tasks. London: Prentice Hall,
pp. 522.
Candlin, C. 2001. Afterward: Taking the curricu-
lum to task in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and
M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks:
Second language learning, teaching, and testing.
New York: Longman, pp. 22943.
Chang, Y. F. 1999. Discourse topics and inter-
language variation in P. Robinson (ed.):
Representation and Process: Proceedings of the 3rd
Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Vol. 1.
Tokyo: PacSLRF, pp. 23541.
Cohen, A. 1994. Assessing Language Ability in the
Classroom. Rowley, MS: Newbury House.
Cook,H.M. 2001. Why cant learners of Japanese as
a foreign language distinguish polite from impolite
speech styles? in K. R. Rose and G. Kasper
(eds): Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 80102.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crookes, G. 1989. Planning and interlanguage
variation, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
11: 18399.
Crookes, G. and S. Gass. 1993. Tasks in a Pedagog-
ical Context: Integrating theory and practice.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Press.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 133
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
de Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model:
Levelts speaking model adapted, Applied
Linguistics 13: 124.
Dewaele, J.-M. and A. Furnham. 2000. Person-
ality and speech production: A pilot study
of second language learners, Personality and
Individual Differences 28: 35565.
Ejzenberg, R. 2000. The juggling act of oral
fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor
in H. Riggenbach (ed.): Perspectives on
Fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
pp. 287314.
Ellis, R. 1987. Interlanguage variability in narrative
discourse: Style shifting and use of the past tense,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 120.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foss, D. J. and D. Hakes. 1978. Psycholinguistics:
An introduction to the psychology of language.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence
of planning and task type on second language
performance, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 18: 299323.
Freed, B. 1995. What makes us think that
students who study abroad become fluent? in
B. F. Freed (ed.): Second Language Acquisition in
Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
pp. 12348.
Freed, B. 2000. Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes
(and ears) of the beholder? in H. Riggenbach
(ed.): Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press, pp. 24365.
Freed, B., N. Seqalowitz and D. Dewey. 2004.
Context of learning and second language
fluency in French, Studies in Second language
Acquisition 26: 277303.
Fulcher, G. and R. Marquez-Reiter. 2003. Task
difficulty in speaking tests, Language Testing 20:
32144.
House, J. 1989. Politeness in English
and German: The functions of please and
bitte in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G.
Kasper (eds): Cross Cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
pp. 96119.
Hudson, T., E. Detmer, and J. D. Brown. 1995.
Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-cultural
Pragmatics (Technical Report No.7). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
John, J. 1992. The Ontario test of ESL oral inter-
action test, System 20: 30516.
Juffs, A. 2001. Psycholinguistically oriented
second language research, Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 21: 20720.
Kasper, G. 1992. Pragmatic transfer, Second
Language Research 8: 20331.
Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics
research in H. Spencer-Catey (ed.), Culturally
Speaking. London: Continuum, pp. 31641.
Kasper, G. 2001. Four perspectives on L2
pragmatic development, Applied Linguistics 22:
50230.
Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic
Development in a Second Language, Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow:
Longman.
Lennon, P. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL:
A quantitative approach, Language Learning 40:
387417.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to
articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Long, M. and G. Crookes. 1992. Three
approaches to task-based syllabus design,
TESOL Quarterly 26: 5598.
Maeshiba, N., G. Kasper, and S. Ross. 1996.
Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage
apologizing in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds):
Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 15587.
McNamara, T. 1996. Measuring Second Language
Performance. London: Longman.
Mehnert, U. 1998. The effects of different lengths
of time for planning on second language perfor-
mance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:
83108.
Nelson, G. L., J. Carson, M. A. Batal,
andW.E.Bakary.2002. Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American
English refusals, Applied Linguistics 23: 16389.
Norris, J. 2002. Interpretations, intended uses
and designs in task-based language assessment,
Language Testing 10: 33746.
Norris, J., J. D. Brown, T. Hudson, and
J. Yoshioka. 1998. Designing Second Language
Performance Assessments. Technical Report No. 18,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center: University of Hawaii.
North, B. 2000. The Development of a Common
Framework Scale of Language Proficiency.
New York: Peter Lang.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the
Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
134 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
-
Okazaki, S. 1993. Stating opinions in Japanese:
listener-dependent strategies in J. E. Atlatis
(ed.): Georgetown University Round Table on
Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, pp. 6995.
Ortega, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2
oral performance, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21: 10948.
Riggenbach, H. 1991. Towards an understanding
of fluency: Amicroanalysis of nonnative speaker
conversations, Discourse Processes 14: 42341.
Robinson, P. 1995. Task complexity and second
language narrative discourse, Language Learning
45: 99140.
Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task
difficulty, and task production: Exploring
interactions in a componential framework,
Applied Linguistics 22: 2757.
Robinson, P., S. Ting, and J. Urwin. 1995.
Investigating second language task complexity,
RELC Journal 25: 6279.
Rose, K. R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional
study of interlanguage pragmatic development,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 2767.
Rose, K. R. andR.Ono. 1995. Eliciting speech act
data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire
type, Language Learning 45: 191223.
Sasaki, M. 1998. Investigating EFL students
production of speech acts: A comparison of
production questionnaires and role plays,
Journal of Pragmatics 30: 45784.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the
philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Segalowitz, N, and B. Freed. 2004. Context,
contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisi-
tion, Studies in Second Language 27: 175201.
Skehan, P. 1995. Analyzability, accessibility, and
ability for use inG. Cook andB. Seidlhofer (eds):
Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 91106.
Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implemen-
tation of task-based instruction, Applied
Linguistics 17: 3862.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P.2001. Tasks and language performance
assessment in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and
M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks:
Second language learning, teaching, and testing.
New York: Longman, pp. 16785.
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1997. The influence
of planning and post-task activities on accuracy
and complexity in task based learning, Language
Teaching Research 1: 185211.
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1999. The influence
of task structure and processing conditions
on narrative retellings, Language Learning 49:
93120.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2001. Focus on form
through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task
effects in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain
(eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second language
learning, teaching, and testing. New York:
Longman, pp. 99118.
Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using
Multivariate Statistics (4th edn). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic
failure, Applied Linguistics 4: 91109.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An
introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Towell, R. 2002. Relative degrees of fluency:
A comparative case study of advanced learners
of French, International Review of Applied
Linguistics 40: 11750.
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics:
Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wendel, J. 1997. Planning and second language
production. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation.
Temple University, Japan.
Wiese, R. 1984. Language production in foreign
and native languages: Same or different? in
H. W. Dechert, D. Mohie, and M. Raupach
(eds): Second Language Productions. Germany:
Gunter Narr Verlag Tugingen, pp. 1125.
Wigglesworth, G. 1997. An investigation
of planning time and proficiency level
on oral test discourse, Language Testing 14:
85106.
Wigglesworth, G. 2001. Influences on perfor-
mance in task-based oral assessments in
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds):
Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second language
learning, teaching, and testing. New York:
Longman, pp. 186209.
Young, D. J. 1992. Language anxiety from the
foreign language specialists perspective:
Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley,
Terrell, and Radin, Foreign Language Annals
25:15772.
Yuan, Y. and R. Ellis. 2003. The effects of
pre-task planning and on-line planning on
fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2
monologic oral production, Applied Linguistics
24: 127.
NAOKO TAGUCHI 135
at University of H
uddersfield on April 12, 2015
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from